Sox minor moves

[Cocos Disciples]

The Wilkerson deal could get up to 2.5MM with incentives.

 

http://blogs.weei.com/alexspeier/2009/02/03/red-sox-wilkerson-agree-to-terms/

[example1]

 

Boy you should write fiction. You just make up a whole scenario spanning years and conclude that is how things would have turned out. Truthfully, you have no idea how things would have turned out if the Wily Mo pena deal had not been made, and neither do I. You constantly try to win arguments with baseless conjecture.

 

I generally make posts with stats and I try to make posts that bring numbers into the picture. I have, in the past few months, spent upwards of 2 hours on a single post, going through the minute stats and numbers to make logical arguments. I could do the same about the averageness of Arroyo, if I felt like it was worth my time. It isn't. If someone else wants to, they certainly could. I haven't seen it yet, because it isn't worth their time either.

 

From your Trade Youkilis for Helton, Youk sucks! arguments, to this doozie on 5/3/06

 

"Originally Posted by Coco's Disciples

"this kid is like david eckstein, but a little slower, and with more gap power."

 

A700hitter: "and the benefit of a slower Eckstein is...?

 

or:

 

"Cano has classic hitters stroke. He has good size too so he's got some power. Pedroia is very small and his swing is big and wild. He makes contact, but he should be slapping the ball or hitting down on it. He's too small to be taking such a big swing. He needs to think like a #2 hitter and go to RF with the ball. He's got a lot of work to do on his stroke if he wants to be consistent at this level."

 

Why should I take a scolding from you about how to evaluate a player, or how to talk about this game?

 

I'm sure your argument now is much more nuanced... let's see...

 

All we do know is that Arroyo has 38 wins in 3 years and WMP is still a bust who plays the game like a wrestler.

 

Really? All we know is that he has 38 wins in 3 years, huh? I guess that sums up your perspective right there. Step 1: Reduce a complex question into a simple variable. Step 2: Choose a useless way of describing that variable. Step 3: belittle other people's attempts at more complex analysis while exhaulting your own brilliance, sharply crafted over decades of watching baseball.

 

I was in favor of the WMP trade when it happened, but I learned a bitter lesson. You never have enough quality pitching and you never trade a solid rotation guy for a guy who is a project. The FO blew that big time.

 

I guess so... I didn't miss Arroyo in 2007 or 2008. I'm pretty much done with Arroyo. I just hear more certainty. You NEVER trade a #5 starter for a project. NEVER, EVER, EVER. Seems a bit extreme.

 

Since you're in the business of judging the lessons that other people should learn from their mistakes, what lesson did you learn when Pedroia became an MVP and Youkilis became one of the best players on one of the best teams in baseball? I'm sure you drew SOME lesson about poo-pooing minor leaguers or draft picks or young talent, or paying too much for players who aren't worth it, right?

 

To argue otherwise is insane. Most of us who liked the trade gave up defending it years ago, because it is indefensible at this point.

 

I wasn't defending it. I stated clearly that "in retrospect he was more valuable than WMP, but few fault them for trying to find another diamond in the rough with WMP". That's not defending. The Sox got Arroyo off of waivers, from PIT, where he had a combined WHIP over 1.50 for the three seasons of intermittent playing time prior. He pitched a total of 27 IP the season before they got him, and they got the most out of him and dealt him at the right time.

 

They signed Arroyo to a sweet hometown discount and traded him. If he wanted to hit the open market as a FA he would have made more than the Sox were willing to give him, therefore, they likely would not have signed him... UNLESS he took a hometown discount as a FA. They probably would have let him go, as a type-B FA and got draft picks for him. I'm not sure how I could possibly know that, it certainly isn't a pattern the Sox have gotten into recently and certainly not something they are concerned about anymore. Pure conjecture!

 

Given that he DID take a hometown discount, and they traded him, it is reasonable to conclude that they would have traded him if he had accepted a hometown discount later, and more likely that they would have wanted the draft picks in return instead. I'm not saying it is gospel, but I think it is indicative of their view of Arroyo. They didn't think he was one of the best pitchers in baseball, and they were right.

[Dojji]

The Wilkerson deal could get up to 2.5MM with incentives.

 

http://blogs.weei.com/alexspeier/2009/02/03/red-sox-wilkerson-agree-to-terms/

 

Wilkerson > Kotsay.

 

Brad was a pretty talented hitter once upon a time and there's always the hope he can get back to that. He's spent more PA's as a bad hitter than a good one though Even there though he plays all 3 OF + 1B and I was thinking of him at points this year as a possible player who could help us in the Kotsay/Moss/Hinske role.

[example1]

I may have been a bit harsh to a700hitter above. I apologize to him if I was unnecessarily so and have PM'd him too. I don't like being told that I do nothing but baseless speculation, and took it personally. He didn't deserve harshness.

 

e1

[Dipre]

Wilkerson could be a useful piece.

 

I think he might be a better backup than Kotsay, actually.

[a700hitter]

I generally make posts with stats and I try to make posts that bring numbers into the picture. I have, in the past few months, spent upwards of 2 hours on a single post, going through the minute stats and numbers to make logical arguments. I could do the same about the averageness of Arroyo, if I felt like it was worth my time. It isn't. If someone else wants to, they certainly could. I haven't seen it yet, because it isn't worth their time either.

 

From your Trade Youkilis for Helton, Youk sucks! arguments, to this doozie on 5/3/06

 

"Originally Posted by Coco's Disciples

"this kid is like david eckstein, but a little slower, and with more gap power."

 

A700hitter: "and the benefit of a slower Eckstein is...?

I don't know the full context of this post, but it seems that someone else compared Youk to Eckstein without power. My reply that "who needs Eckstein without speed" could have been sarcasm. While I have been in favor of trading Youk in the past, I would never have made that comparison in a serious vein.

 

"Cano has classic hitters stroke. He has good size too so he's got some power. Pedroia is very small and his swing is big and wild. He makes contact' date=' but [b']he should be slapping the ball or hitting down on it. He's too small to be taking such a big swing. He needs to think like a #2 hitter and go to RF with the ball. He's got a lot of work to do on his stroke if he wants to be consistent at this level[/b]."

I can assure you that i wasn't the only one with those observations. Jim Rice and Jerry Remy openly questioned his big swing and advised that he should shorten it. I have very publicly admitted that I was wrong about Pedroia. So, your point is that if I am wrong about a player, my opinion should be disgarded? Should Rice and Remy be ignored too? What about all the NFL coaches and GM s that passed on Johnny Unitas and Curt Warner or the experts that thought Larry Bird was too slow and couldn't jump? Should all of their future opinions be disregarded. It's typical of a poor argument to bring up irrelevant situations to bolster a weak argument. We have not been discussing Pedroia or Youkilis. We have been discussing Arroyo's value as a #5 starter. He's solid. It can't be denied. You claim that this discussion is so unimportant to you that it is not worth your time to engage in a statistical analysis supporting your argument. Oddly enough, it is worth your time to research my posts from almost 3 years ago. What's up with that? Either you don't realize that this is irrelevant information that doesn't support your argument, or you are so obsessed with discrediting my opinion that you will research years of my posts to do so. Either way, you are being hypocritical and disingenuous when you claim that this doesn't matter to you. Other posters have pointed this out.

 

BTW, bringing up irrelevant posts in an argument to discredit a poster with regard to a different topic is a smear tactic. You should stick with arguing a point rather than arguing with the poster.

 

You NEVER trade a #5 starter for a project. NEVER' date=' EVER, EVER. Seems a bit extreme.[/quote'] I know that you don't like when someone generalizes about your posts, but you often mischaracterize my posts. I said that I had originally liked the WMP trade, but was proved wrong. I never said that you should never trade a #5 starter for a project. Most #5's suck. Here is my direct quote which is much different:

You never have enough quality pitching and you never trade a solid rotation guy for a guy who is a project.

These were the lessons that I learned from the WMP trade

 

They signed Arroyo to a sweet hometown discount and traded him. If he wanted to hit the open market as a FA he would have made more than the Sox were willing to give him, therefore, they likely would not have signed him... UNLESS he took a hometown discount as a FA. They probably would have let him go, as a type-B FA and got draft picks for him. I'm not sure how I could possibly know that, it certainly isn't a pattern the Sox have gotten into recently and certainly not something they are concerned about anymore. Pure conjecture!

 

Given that he DID take a hometown discount, and they traded him, it is reasonable to conclude that they would have traded him if he had accepted a hometown discount later, and more likely that they would have wanted the draft picks in return instead. I'm not saying it is gospel, but I think it is indicative of their view of Arroyo. They didn't think he was one of the best pitchers in baseball, and they were right.

I never said that it wasn't a reasonable conclusion, but you tend to state your theories as rock solid conclusions. They are not. They may be reasonable conjecture, but they are still conjecture. Maybe the Sox traded Arroyo, because they thought that he had topped out. If he had stayed the additional year and pitched well, the FO might have changed its mind about him, or he might have bombed out and ended up in the bullpen as a spot starter with no real FA FMV. Neither of us know how it would have tured out if he had stayed, but given his subsequent performance it is relatively clear that they should have gotten more for him than WMP.

[a700hitter]

I may have been a bit harsh to a700hitter above. I apologize to him if I was unnecessarily so and have PM'd him too. I don't like being told that I do nothing but baseless speculation, and took it personally. He didn't deserve harshness.

 

e1

I appreciate your apology. With few exceptions, while we have disagreed passionately, we have managed to keep our exchanges respectful.

[example1]

I appreciate your apology. With few exceptions' date=' while we have disagreed passionately, we have managed to keep our exchanges respectful.[/quote']

 

Yes, and hence my apology. I didn't want it to get too fired up. Neither of us cares enough about the Arroyo-WMP trade to go to the mat over it.

[Rob_Zombie]

When was this? And who is talking about Youkilis? I love the posters who look to tar me with a past opinion about a player that is not being discussed, but they will never hold the FO accountable for a truly terrible trade like the Wily Mo trade. Somehow, my judgment is impugned because of a past mistake, but the FO is still doing a great job, despite Wily Mo and Lugo and others. Anyway, to address the irrelevant case of Youkilis that you have interjected, prior to last year, it was my opinion that Youk was a .280 hitter with 15 Hrs and 80 RBI. I didn't expect him to step up his power game at age 28. Even though I would have sold high on him if the Sox got Teixeira to alleviate the logjam at 1st and 3rd base. I never said that he wasn't any good.

 

While wins may not be the best indicator of how a pitcher oitches from year to year, if he consistently puts up 10 to 15 wins every year and 200+ innings, the guy has established himself as a very reliable back of the rotation pitcher.

 

Pitching in the ALE is not that difficult if you pitch for the Yankees or the Red Sox. The Rays, Orioles and Jays consistently are in the bottom half of offensive teams in the AL. Also, let's not forget that Arroyo has been pitching in one of the more ridiculous band boxes in baseball with one of the worst defensive teams backing him up.

 

More embarrassing from a700 hitter.

 

#1 Though I distinctively remember you saying that Youkilis was "s***" that's not the point of the comment. The point is that you make arguments with irrelevant stats, little to no explanation, or any hint that you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. This is the case even when I agree with your general conclusion.

 

#2 Apparently you don't think the FO is doing a "great job". However the team has made the playoffs every year since Theo took over save one. They have won two world Series and two division series during this time. I guess if you think that results are irrelevant, then they aren't doing a good job.

 

#3 Wins aren't an indicator of anything its a completely worthless stat that tells you zero about a pitchers performance or how he will perform in the future. Its not just that they "aren't the best indicator", they aren't an indicator at all. I would question any argument that uses wins.

 

#4 Every team has signings and trades that don't turn out well for one reason or another. In fact, you win trades and singings roughly 60% of the time, you are probably doing very well. You simply can't look at the trades that that didn't turn out and declare that the FO isn't doing their job. Which leads me too........

 

#5 Is it fair to judge a trade or signing simply on the results? I can give you an extreme example. Lets say that you make a trade for a player who is involved in an accident and can't play anymore. Is it fair to say that the team's front office should have forseen the accident? Of course not.

 

What's fair is to ask if the trade should have been made based upon available information at the time. GMs don't have crystal balls, but they can accurately assess their risk and possible return. Its fair to ask if the front office did so in this trade.

 

At the time for the Arroyo trade, Arroyo was coming off a season where he had a league average ERA. Quite frankly, he was lucky to do that as he had an unsustainable .246 BABIP. His K's and GB% were way down from the year before.

 

Boston had no one in the system at the time with power potential and faced the looming free agency of Trot Nixon and down the line Manny Ramirez. Willy Mo Pena was a roll of the dice but the upside was enormous. Clearly you were trading a pitcher who was likely to be below average for a player with the upside as a star. Heads you win big, tails you loose very little.

 

Personally, if I had the same available information as I did then, I'd roll the dice all over again for a pitcher who looked like he was going to be a high 4's low 5's ERA pitcher at best.

 

Since then Arroyo has averaged an FIP of roughly 4.50 in the NL East where the level of competition is much weaker and there is no DH. Its likely that he would have had an ERA around 5.00 had he stayed in Boston.

 

I also disagree that Arroyo's departure hurt the Sox in anyway. Arroyo wasn't good enough to help them make the playoffs in 06, they won in 07, and they only scored 1 run in game 7 of 2008. Doubtful that he could have helped them more than Paul Byrd did.

[Rob_Zombie]

I don't know the full context of this post, but it seems that someone else compared Youk to Eckstein without power. My reply that "who needs Eckstein without speed" could have been sarcasm. While I have been in favor of trading Youk in the past, I would never have made that comparison in a serious vein.

 

I can assure you that i wasn't the only one with those observations. Jim Rice and Jerry Remy openly questioned his big swing and advised that he should shorten it. I have very publicly admitted that I was wrong about Pedroia. So, your point is that if I am wrong about a player, my opinion should be disgarded? Should Rice and Remy be ignored too? What about all the NFL coaches and GM s that passed on Johnny Unitas and Curt Warner or the experts that thought Larry Bird was too slow and couldn't jump? Should all of their future opinions be disregarded. It's typical of a poor argument to bring up irrelevant situations to bolster a weak argument. We have not been discussing Pedroia or Youkilis. We have been discussing Arroyo's value as a #5 starter. He's solid. It can't be denied. You claim that this discussion is so unimportant to you that it is not worth your time to engage in a statistical analysis supporting your argument. Oddly enough, it is worth your time to research my posts from almost 3 years ago. What's up with that? Either you don't realize that this is irrelevant information that doesn't support your argument, or you are so obsessed with discrediting my opinion that you will research years of my posts to do so. Either way, you are being hypocritical and disingenuous when you claim that this doesn't matter to you. Other posters have pointed this out.

 

BTW, bringing up irrelevant posts in an argument to discredit a poster with regard to a different topic is a smear tactic. You should stick with arguing a point rather than arguing with the poster.

 

I know that you don't like when someone generalizes about your posts, but you often mischaracterize my posts. I said that I had originally liked the WMP trade, but was proved wrong. I never said that you should never trade a #5 starter for a project. Most #5's suck. Here is my direct quote which is much different:

These were the lessons that I learned from the WMP trade

 

I never said that it wasn't a reasonable conclusion, but you tend to state your theories as rock solid conclusions. They are not. They may be reasonable conjecture, but they are still conjecture. Maybe the Sox traded Arroyo, because they thought that he had topped out. If he had stayed the additional year and pitched well, the FO might have changed its mind about him, or he might have bombed out and ended up in the bullpen as a spot starter with no real FA FMV. Neither of us know how it would have tured out if he had stayed, but given his subsequent performance it is relatively clear that they should have gotten more for him than WMP.

 

This post is an example as to why a700 hitters posts should be disregarded.

 

Its perfectly fine for your conclusions to be wrong. No one is perfect. The problem is that you argue in simplistic absolutes, or don't put together an argument at all. This post is a perfect example. Your argument that "you should never trade a back of the rotation starter for a project" is akin to saying that you shouldn't wear white on Wednesdays. It demonstrates that you have very little idea as to what you are talking about. Besides, its not correct. Though Willy Mo wasn't a polished player he had previously played well for the Reds slugging .500 one year. When you do use evidence, its evidence that has no basis, or is dead wrong, such as arguing that there is no difference between the A.L. East and the N.L. Central because you don't have to face the Red Sox or Yankees if you are pitching for one of those clubs.

 

Lost of your posts are along the lines of "Player X sucks". Even if player X really does suck that's not a real argument. Finally given your total lack of analytical skills, your conclusions tend to be wrong a lot.

 

To use your analogy, if a basketball evaluator dismissed Larry Bird as a future failure in 1979 without seeing him play at IU then yes their future opinions should be questioned and possibly even disregarded. By the way, I know of no such evaluator who did so.

[Keeper]

To use your analogy' date=' if a basketball evaluator dismissed Larry Bird as a future failure in 1979 without seeing him play at IU then yes their future opinions should be questioned and possibly even disregarded. By the way, I know of no such evaluator who did so.[/quote']

 

You didn't look very hard, then. Five players were picked ahead of Bird in the 1978 draft: Mychal Thompson, Phil Ford, Rick Robey, Michael Ray Richardson, and Purvis Short. With the exception of Robey, they all had decent careers, but none of them hold a candle to Bird.

 

I don't always agree with a700 hitter, but it seems like you're on a crusade to bring him down a notch or something. What did he ever do to you?

[example1]

You didn't look very hard' date=' then. Five players were picked ahead of Bird in the 1978 draft: Mychal Thompson, Phil Ford, Rick Robey, Michael Ray Richardson, and Purvis Short. With the exception of Robey, they all had decent careers, but none of them hold a candle to Bird. [/quote']

 

I really don't want to nitpick, because I understand your larger point, but the five guys picked ahead of Bird may have been picked because those teams thought they would be good, not because they thought Bird would be a failure. :dunno:

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

You didn't look very hard' date=' then. Five players were picked ahead of Bird in the 1978 draft: Mychal Thompson, Phil Ford, Rick Robey, Michael Ray Richardson, and Purvis Short. With the exception of Robey, they all had decent careers, but none of them hold a candle to Bird.[/quote']

 

Bird's talent/potential was not the reason for that.

[Keeper]

Bird is a Hall of Famer and arguably one of the greatest forwards of all time. You don't think they undervalued him? You don't think those five teams dropped the ball with their picks? Those teams may have already had established forwards. Doesn't matter. Bird would have most certainly been an upgrade. You draft based on positional needs. But when you pass up a player like Bird for a player like Robey... you obviously didn't think much of Bird.

[italstallianion]

Does paying these players have anything to do with not drafting the best player available? In order words, is the NBA draft similar to the MLB draft in that regard?

[Dojji]

Bird is a Hall of Famer and arguably one of the greatest forwards of all time. You don't think they undervalued him? You don't think those five teams dropped the ball with their picks? Those teams may have already had established forwards. Doesn't matter. Bird would have most certainly been an upgrade. You draft based on positional needs. But when you pass up a player like Bird for a player like Robey... you obviously didn't think much of Bird.

 

Maybe but there was no guarantee on draft day that Bird would become what he is. Developing into a star player involves a mutual investment of a lot of time, effort and training on the part of the team and the player, it doesn't happen on the basis of talent alone.

 

There's a lot of reasons to take someone else over a guy who looks like a future star. Maybe you like the guy you took better. Maybe the guy you like fills a "position of need." Maybe the "star" isn't a personality fit with your organization. Maybe you're stretched as far as you want to go financially. Maybe there's a flaw you see in his game that gives you doubts about him long-term. (that's what happened to Phil Kessel)

 

And of course, maybe you don't believe the hype about the player you overlooked.

 

There's a LOT that goes into the decision of who to draft when your slot comes up, and it's not ever as cut and dried as pure talent alone

 

This really has nothing to do with Wily Mo/Bronson. Wily Mo Pena was an established big league player, having played multiuple full seasons with the Reds and putting up decent numbers there. He tore the cover off the ball for the Sox in 2006 even.

 

I suspect a combination of his wrist injury and some inconsistency in playing time made it easier for pitchers to figure him out. I still wouldn't rule out a couple monster seasons for the guy if someone believes in him enough to give him a real shot.

[a700hitter]

More embarrassing from a700 hitter.

 

#1 Though I distinctively remember you saying that Youkilis was "s***" that's not the point of the comment. The point is that you make arguments with irrelevant stats, little to no explanation, or any hint that you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. This is the case even when I agree with your general conclusion.

Find me a single post where I called Youkilis "s***". Otherwise, shut up. I think he did better than most people expected last season, but I never thought he was a bad player.

 

#2 Apparently you don't think the FO is doing a "great job". However the team has made the playoffs every year since Theo took over save one. They have won two world Series and two division series during this time. I guess if you think that results are irrelevant' date=' then they aren't doing a good job.[/quote']I never said that either, but you have your own way of interpreting my posts and my intentions. Of course, you must be right despite my very clear statements to the contrary. You must suck at your personal relationships if you are always telling others how they feel. Here' s my opinion about the FO, but feel free to tell me how I really feel. On balance, they have done a good job. They have been better at raising revenue than player personnel moves, but their personnel moves have been good too as the team record will bear it out. Are wins an indicator of good FO performance? You tell me. I will criticize the FO for its bad moves or non-moves. As you say later on in your post, a record of 60% for the FO on player moves is good. Does that mean that we can't discuss and criticize the other 40%? Are you trying to institute some form of censorship, or are you Theo's dad?

 

#3 Wins aren't an indicator of anything its a completely worthless stat that tells you zero about a pitchers performance or how he will perform in the future. Its not just that they "aren't the best indicator"' date=' they aren't an indicator at all. I would question any argument that uses wins.[/quote']You must be right, but you might want to talk to some starting pitchers and ask their opinion.

 

#4 Every team has signings and trades that don't turn out well for one reason or another. In fact' date=' you win trades and singings roughly 60% of the time, you are probably doing very well. You simply can't look at the trades that that didn't turn out and declare that the FO isn't doing their job. Which leads me too........[/quote']...but if I am wrong about any player in my more than 13,000 posts, my opinion should be disregarded. A little bit of a double standard maybe?

 

#5 Is it fair to judge a trade or signing simply on the results? I can give you an extreme example. Lets say that you make a trade for a player who is involved in an accident and can't play anymore. Is it fair to say that the team's front office should have forseen the accident? Of course not.

 

What's fair is to ask if the trade should have been made based upon available information at the time. GMs don't have crystal balls, but they can accurately assess their risk and possible return. Its fair to ask if the front office did so in this trade.

Duh? Did n't I post a couple of times that I was in favor of the WMP trade when it was made? BTW, WMP didn't have an accident or anything. He was a trainwreck. He couldn't field or make contact at the plate, plus he had no instinct for the game. Our scouting should have picked this up.

 

I also disagree that Arroyo's departure hurt the Sox in anyway. Arroyo wasn't good enough to help them make the playoffs in 06' date=' they won in 07, and they only scored 1 run in game 7 of 2008. Doubtful that he could have helped them more than Paul Byrd did.[/quote']I never said that his departure hurt Boston. I said that it was a bad trade and a mistake, but I never said that it ended up hurting the team. That's your interpretation. They obviously made other deals and player moves to improve the team. I suggest remedial reading before you post again. Otherwise, we shouldn't take your posts seriously. Reading comprehension is essential to well formed arguments on this forum.

[a700hitter]

This post is an example as to why a700 hitters posts should be disregarded.

 

Its perfectly fine for your conclusions to be wrong. No one is perfect. The problem is that you argue in simplistic absolutes, or don't put together an argument at all. This post is a perfect example. Your argument that "you should never trade a back of the rotation starter for a project" is akin to saying that you shouldn't wear white on Wednesdays.

I never said "you should never trade a back of the rotation starter for a project" My statement was:

You never have enough quality pitching and you never trade a solid rotation guy for a guy who is a project.

I called him a solid rotation guy, because I view him as being better than almost every team's #5 and he has been more consistent than lots of #4's. I would trade many back of the rotation guys, because most of them suck and are not solid contributors. If you are going to criticize statements of mine, please get the statement right. Although I made a simple statement, you interpreted it incorrectly.

 

Lost of your posts are along the lines of "Player X sucks". Even if player X really does suck that's not a real argument. Finally given your total lack of analytical skills' date=' your conclusions tend to be wrong a lot.[/quote']I rarely say that a guy sucks. Willie Harris is one player that comes to mind, but he does suck. In 13,000 posts I have said that a few guys suck, but praised more guys than those who I have declared as garbage. Am I the only one who criticizes players in this forum?

 

To use your analogy' date=' if a basketball evaluator dismissed Larry Bird as a future failure in 1979 without seeing him play at IU then yes their future opinions should be questioned and possibly even disregarded. By the way, I know of no such evaluator who did so.[/quote']Unlike Unitas and Warner, no one completely dismissed Bird, but few thought that he would be a HOF Player that would transform the Celtic team.

[italstallianion]

I think I'll sit this one out...you can find me when the back and forth accusations cease...

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Bird is a Hall of Famer and arguably one of the greatest forwards of all time. You don't think they undervalued him? You don't think those five teams dropped the ball with their picks? Those teams may have already had established forwards. Doesn't matter. Bird would have most certainly been an upgrade. You draft based on positional needs. But when you pass up a player like Bird for a player like Robey... you obviously didn't think much of Bird.

Spoken like someone who has zero clue about NBA history.

[Keeper]

Enlighten me then, Jacoby. So far all you've done is say that I'm wrong without explaining why. A petulant child could do as much.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Enlighten me then' date=' Jacoby. So far all you've done is say that I'm wrong without explaining why. A petulant child could do as much.[/quote']

They drafted Bird a year before he actually joined the team, and he had a deadline to sign with the C's or he would jump into a second draft. The C's had 2 first rounders that year, #6 and #8, and figured they might as well take a chance on Bird with one of them, given his potential. The other NBA teams were too scared to take Bird, given the risk involved, and knowing that if he didn't sign with them by a certain date, he would fall back into a second draft. Portland probably would have taken him at #7 though, they also had two first rounders (#1 and #7).

[Keeper]

Now, that's a good explanation. Seems I was wrong.

[Dipre]

How about if we cool down, forget about the argument, the NBA draft, and get back to solid baseball discussion?

[BSN07]

It's not a move, but it's a minor note.

 

Red Sox Not Interested In Pedro

By Ben Nicholson-Smith [February 28 at 9:30am CST]

 

According to Sean McAdam of the Boston Herald, the Red Sox are not interested in bringing Pedro Martinez back to Boston. McAdam's sources say Pedro's representatives approached the Red Sox this week to determine interest and heard from the Red Sox that they don't have room for Pedro.

 

Pedro, who won two Cy Youngs and a World Series in Boston, will pitch in the WBC for the Dominican Republic and hopes to attract interest with a good showing

 

 

Thought it was interesting Pedro had any desire to return to Boston. But he probably pitch anywhere about now. If they didn't already have Penny and Smoltz, I'd say give him a shot. It relatively low risk depth move. But with what the team has now, I can't blame them for Passing.

 

Question is though, what if he looks really good in the WBC?

[WhiskeyBreath]

I'd like Pedro to come back to Boston but there isn't room for him.

 

I wonder if Pedro would be better off pitching out of the pen to keep himself healthy?

[BSN07]

Red Sox Claim Travis Denker

By Tim Dierkes [April 14 at 3:20pm CST]

 

According to Tom Krasovic of the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Red Sox claimed second baseman Travis Denker off waivers from the Padres today. Denker had been designated for assignment to clear a spot for Luis Perdomo.

 

Denker, 23, hit .282/.373/.468 at Triple A last year as a member of the Giants organization. Baseball America envisioned him as an offense-first second baseman in their '08 Handbook, writing, "his value lies in his bat and his tenacity."

[Cocos Disciples]

Brad Wilkerson retired today.

 

http://www.projo.com/pawsox/content/sp_bb_wilkerson_web_20_04-20-09_8KE3COL_v2.2fc8a84.html

[Binga46]

would have been handy when september came around...

[italstallianion]

Brad Wilkerson retired today.

 

http://www.projo.com/pawsox/content/sp_bb_wilkerson_web_20_04-20-09_8KE3COL_v2.2fc8a84.html

 

Dang, and I figured that Bard would have been the most useless signing in the offseason. How much are we boned on the Wilkerson deal?